Zero Punctuation: Battlefield: Hardline - Cops & Robbers

Yahtzee Croshaw

New member
Aug 8, 2007
11,049
0
0
Battlefield: Hardline - Cops & Robbers

This week, Zero Punctuation reviews Battlefield: Hardline.

Watch Video
 

petro814

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1
0
0
Alas, I was hoping for Bloodborne this week. I guess a game like that might take a little longer to play and analyze.

As for Battlefield, well...at least the ethnically diverse cops and robbers game is less worrying than the ethnic cleansing army game. Still have no interest in playing though.
 

Jman1236

New member
Jul 29, 2008
528
0
0
He has said it takes 2 weeks for a review to come out, also I'm surprised that a) hes going easy on a AAA shooter and b) enjoyed the hotwire mode. Yeah and those trolls on metacritic can go stfu for calling hardline a $60 expansion of BF4. I've had more fun with hardline than I did with BF4.
 

StreamerDarkly

Disciple of Trevor Philips
Jan 15, 2015
193
0
0
a gang of allies so perfectly ethnically diverse that they could all line up in order and start a novelty act called the amazing human gradient
Quality.

As for the usual complaints about multiplayer, I'd be interested to hear what exactly Yahtzee expects beyond "trying not to die and being informed 10 minutes later of whether your team had won". This is always going to be the way of things in random matchmaking games played at or below the typical skill level. Yet I'd be surprised if objective based gametypes where there exists a purpose beyond killing the enemy would change his opinion one bit. If you want organization, strategy and a greater sense of purpose, and maybe even fun, sink more time into multiplayer instead of making the same old gripe every time.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,324
264
88
Country
Philippines
Wait, he didn't rip it a new butthole and fill it with sour cream? Haven't watched it yet since I'm using my phone, but considering that most of the Battlefield community hate this one van more than BF4, I was expecting him to hate the shit out of this game.
 

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
I'll admit I haven't really been super into Zero Punctuation lately. I mean most games he reviews I can just look at and know almost exactly what he thinks of it, but this one managed to really make me laugh when he got into arresting the private police and talking about the criminal police. Bravo, Yahtzee. Very funny video.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,954
6
13
You can't arrest me! Not if I arrest you first!

Why haven't I used this playground-esque tactic before??

Oh well. Back to bloodborne then.
 

GodzillaGuy92

New member
Jul 10, 2012
344
0
0
StreamerDarkly said:
If you want organization, strategy and a greater sense of purpose, and maybe even fun, sink more time into multiplayer instead of making the same old gripe every time.
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
GodzillaGuy92 said:
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
Especially since multiplayer becomes utterly disposable due to the game's servers becoming a ghost town. ANd that's before we get into how freaking repetitive the matches become.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
"You are a cop on the Feelz. You've been murdered for a spice of cheese you didn't commit. Now, you're out for a good time and to clear your browser history."

OT: Anyway...

1. I would play a game called Bullet Thief just to see what the developers would do with a title like that...
2. So... When someone ask "What does the fox say?", the appropriate response is "RAVE!", then?
3. Well, throwing a grenade is like preparing for a potential arrest... because, in both scenarios, you're hoping the suspect stays still long enough for it to take effect properly...
4. I thought the Criminal Police was just the police only fully run by criminals...
5. There is no 5...
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
I completely skipped over Battlefield 4 after being so thoroughly bored by Battlefield 3 (though I did watch various people playing BF4), but the "meh" reception to Hardline is something I actually find encouraging. Maybe Battlefield Hardline can good for a few spurts of multiplayer action, and if I get bored I can try out the singleplayer for a bit. Yahtzee being sympathetic to BF: Hardline is definitely a surprise, and a pleasant one at that and I'm no fan of the series.

The complaint about the "return to the battlefield" message really needs to be tooted more by people generally.

I'll wait for the price to go down a bit though.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Yeah, I'd say that list of player names that popped up pretty accurately sums up any given server on any given modern military shooter at any given time. :p
 

StreamerDarkly

Disciple of Trevor Philips
Jan 15, 2015
193
0
0
GodzillaGuy92 said:
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
As always, single player and multiplayer offer very different experiences. It just amazes me how consistently those who worship in the temple of the former will casually dismiss the latter as the food of peasants, unaware of just how similar to religious fundamentalists they sound.
 

BrownGaijin

New member
Jan 31, 2009
895
0
0
No crossover this year? No Happy Birthday to Yug? It's like Christmas without decorations around here!

OT: I'm getting more nervous for Visceral Games.
 

GodzillaGuy92

New member
Jul 10, 2012
344
0
0
StreamerDarkly said:
GodzillaGuy92 said:
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
As always, single player and multiplayer offer very different experiences. It just amazes me how consistently those who worship in the temple of the former will casually dismiss the latter as the food of peasants, unaware of just how similar to religious fundamentalists they sound.
A one-sentence argument with simple but sound reasoning behind it being met with ad hominem wrapped in a twofold blanket of strawman and unironic comparison to religious fundamentalism. The internet is an amazing place.
 

Silent Protagonist

New member
Jul 18, 2020
270
0
0
I find the idea of pushing diversity too far the other direction to be pretty interesting. It drives me nuts when a game has a "minority" character and it seems like every other line of dialogue they have, or dialogue that mentions them, reminds you of that fact like the designers are afraid we will forget their game features a minority. It also bugs me when the cast is a perfect rainbow of diversity like an educational kids show with a representative from every major racial group and usually someone in a wheelchair to boot. Diversity is generally a good thing, but instances like that feel so forced to the point it might actually be detrimental to the cause they are trying to promote.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
What I found amusing is not just that heavily armed guards would surrender rather than simply opening fire but that they would kindly not yell out for help to their pals a mere ten feet away. At any point they could call out and bring the whole room down on you, but nope they are too polite to do that. XD
 

StreamerDarkly

Disciple of Trevor Philips
Jan 15, 2015
193
0
0
GodzillaGuy92 said:
A one-sentence argument with simple but sound reasoning behind it being met with ad hominem wrapped in a twofold blanket of strawman and unironic comparison to religious fundamentalism. The internet is an amazing place.
You flatter yourself with how much credit your "argument" deserves, as the desirable characteristics I spoke of were clearly in the context of enjoying multiplayer gaming. As in, one might enjoy gardening for the reasons listed, but you won't find many gardeners claiming their particular choice of vegetables as the one true path to enlightenment.

When you have something more than the stock line of multiplayer xenophobes who defend themselves with tired XBL stereotypes and who feel the need to denigrate those who sink serious time into PvP, come find me.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
Wait, he didn't rip it a new butthole and fill it with sour cream? Haven't watched it yet since I'm using my phone, but considering that most of the Battlefield community hate this one van more than BF4, I was expecting him to hate the shit out of this game.
If someone who's been hating something for a long time suddenly turns his opinion around about a new iteration you should probably be cautious of that if you're someone who's previously enjoyed that something. It usually means a pretty major part of it has changed hence why people who previously liked it might now be turned off.

I'm pretty sure Yahtzee himself has made that exact point in the past.
 

RenegadeDuck

New member
Oct 9, 2014
25
0
0
gamegod25 said:
What I found amusing is not just that heavily armed guards would surrender rather than simply opening fire but that they would kindly not yell out for help to their pals a mere ten feet away. At any point they could call out and bring the whole room down on you, but nope they are too polite to do that. XD
That got on my nerves so much. The armed, hardened killers respond to being arrested better than over half of the people real cops hand out speeding tickets to. They have their guns out, often times much larger and more effective guns than the protagonist, but they still drop them even after they're aiming right at you like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And if it's not already stupid enough that they're complying politely to arrest despite being hired, heavily armed mercs, they're not even being arrested by an actual cop! You can arrest these guys after you've been discharged! What is that?! As long as you've got a badge you can force people into submission? Maybe I can get a badge, go down to my local bank, begin to rob it, and as soon as the cops show up I just hold it up and shout "Freeze!" and then arrest them. All of them. At once.

Also, in the game, their legs aren't bound at all. Coupled with the aforementioned possibility of just screaming for help, they could also slip away when you turn your back and show up a few minutes later with their friends after they got one of their blokes to cut the cuffs off. Not that the protagonist doesn't have an infinite supply of handcuffs to arrest them all with. And arresting an armed guard would probably be way more hard than pulling a basic maneuver used on drunks. It would probably be a life-and-death struggle when the guard pulls out their knife or something and starts wrestling with you, probably while calling for help.

The arrest mechanic is as stupid as it could be. Realistically, at best, you'd incapacitate a single guy while getting yourself discovered by his buddies and later having to deal with that same guy when he runs away and gets free, and at worst, you'd be killed by that single guy who pulled out a pistol on you while you were trying to arrest him or get killed by his entire gang shortly after they're alerted. Either way, you're actually making your situation WORSE by trying to arrest someone.
 

Tortilla the Hun

Decidedly on the Fence
May 7, 2011
2,244
0
0
GodzillaGuy92 said:
StreamerDarkly said:
If you want organization, strategy and a greater sense of purpose, and maybe even fun, sink more time into multiplayer instead of making the same old gripe every time.
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
There are actually ways of using strategy and organization in multiplayer games. It's just a matter of finding a good group and someone at the helm who knows what they're doing. A cohesive team with good direction will win 9 times out of 10.
 

GodzillaGuy92

New member
Jul 10, 2012
344
0
0
Mortis Nuncius said:
There are actually ways of using strategy and organization in multiplayer games. It's just a matter of finding a good group and someone at the helm who knows what they're doing. A cohesive team with good direction will win 9 times out of 10.
Oh, for sure. I was just saying that going through that process in a multiplayer game in order to achieve said strategy and organization is often more trouble than just just booting up a strategic singleplayer game.

StreamerDarkly said:
And now we can add xenophobia and some bizarre fusion of religion (again) and gardening to the list of comically overblown comparisons? You know what, keep going. I'm curious to see how far this rabbit hole goes.
 

Varrdy

New member
Feb 25, 2010
875
0
0
This was Yahtzee at his best - metaphors so colourful they make rainbows look bland.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,748
373
88
Country
USA
theuprising said:
Yahtzee... playing... and ENJOYING multiplayer. Oh well look at that date.
I find it difficult to believe that will some day be me!!!! Seriously, I have had some multiplayer experiences that are OK and play for ones and fives of hours of them. But when I want the full immersive experience, I'm doing it solo.

I'm thinking Yahtzee is in the same boat: he had fun on multiplay for, I dunno... 3.2 hours?
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Oh, this HAS to be a prank! Yahtzee, being nice to a Battlefield game? What the deuce? I haven't been perplexed by this approach to Spunkgargleweewee since his review of CoD:BlOps 2!
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Mortis Nuncius said:
GodzillaGuy92 said:
StreamerDarkly said:
If you want organization, strategy and a greater sense of purpose, and maybe even fun, sink more time into multiplayer instead of making the same old gripe every time.
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
There are actually ways of using strategy and organization in multiplayer games. It's just a matter of finding a good group and someone at the helm who knows what they're doing. A cohesive team with good direction will win 9 times out of 10.
Not when everyone is a xXxLone_WolfxXx
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,686
735
118
Country
Argentina
Always nice to see him enjoy a game, especially one cut from something he tends to dislike.
Waiting for the Bloodborne review.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
I lasted about 3 hours in the multiplayer beta.

It's a "Battlefield" game but with all the variety and content stripped-out and a far shallower skill curve. In many ways you could call it a Battlefield game for the CoD demographic. The numbers show exactly who this game is popular with:



In fact BF4 has over TWICE the online PC players than Hardline PC players, and isn't that telling! This is the first battlefield game which has only attracted console players while PC players are simply NOT interested.

Worse graphics, almost no destruction, far less guns (and they STILL managed to fuck-up the weapon balance), far less vehicle-based gameplay, bad car physics, etc. Most guns kill super-fast regardless of where you hit the player (no need to aim), everyone is basically running around insta-killing or insta-dying.

But EA are still charging $60-70 for this and pushing $110-120 premium DLC package. Amazing.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
Oh, this HAS to be a prank! Yahtzee, being nice to a Battlefield game? What the deuce? I haven't been perplexed by this approach to Spunkgargleweewee since his review of CoD:BlOps 2!
Wait what perplexed you about his Black Ops II review? It was the pretty typical overly harsh, racist theory, I'm not a fan of the MMS genre video.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
certainly surprising he enjoyed the game. but so do i. even when hotwire is not my kind of thing but still a good time every now and then. heist is more my kind of fun time.
and at least the SP is not some huge downer with a very forgettable story and short playtime. at least you do have different races which is not so common for the last BF titles.
 

MaddKossack115

New member
Jul 29, 2013
84
0
0
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
 

theuprising

New member
Jun 19, 2013
85
0
0
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
 

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
This looks like the first Battlefield in a looong time that i might actually enjoy. Amusing that the review was flanked fore and aft with an advert for the very game that was being reviewed...

Hope Yahtzee does Pillars of Eternity in a couple of weeks, RPG or not...
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
When you consider the steady militarization of our police forces, this game makes perfect sense.
 

MaddKossack115

New member
Jul 29, 2013
84
0
0
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
Look, it's not like the game is necessarily bad in quality of content, but in QUANTITY, it just doesn't hold enough to justify a $60-$120 pricetag, especially compared to the content of a game made just a year before it. If this WAS just released as a DLC with some tweaks to gameplay, or given a relative low price of $15-$30, it would be a more fair offer. It's more to counterbalance the "charge more money for less content" strategy that Triple-A gaming has been sticking to these days is all.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
StreamerDarkly said:
GodzillaGuy92 said:
...Or just play a good singleplayer campaign, and get all that stuff up front instead of having to offer up unspecified hours of your life to the Multiplayer Sacrificial Altar.
As always, single player and multiplayer offer very different experiences. It just amazes me how consistently those who worship in the temple of the former will casually dismiss the latter as the food of peasants, unaware of just how similar to religious fundamentalists they sound.
As a longtime fan of both, I think most of these criticisms aren't about hating on multiplayer gameplay overall, but more about the spoon-fed nature of it these days, both in incrementally unlocking stuff only after logging enough hours to 'earn' them, and DLCs that charge extra for new content to stretch out the game, but in doing so split the player base.

I would wager that the people making these complaints come from the era before this one, where every weapon, vehicle etc was available to all right from the start, and add-ons only existed in large expansion packs that generally justified their price tags (but also split the player base)
 

theuprising

New member
Jun 19, 2013
85
0
0
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
Look, it's not like the game is necessarily bad in quality of content, but in QUANTITY, it just doesn't hold enough to justify a $60-$120 pricetag, especially compared to the content of a game made just a year before it. If this WAS just released as a DLC with some tweaks to gameplay, or given a relative low price of $15-$30, it would be a more fair offer. It's more to counterbalance the "charge more money for less content" strategy that Triple-A gaming has been sticking to these days is all.
But this is a standalone game. Meaning you don't have to have B4 to get the Battlefield large scale battle experience AND get a new game mode on top. If you already have battlefield, that's different, but you are paying full price because you are getting the full package, the same package that someone with no Battlefield has had.

What are you saying that if you buy a sequel it should be discounted if you bought the game before it?
 

MaddKossack115

New member
Jul 29, 2013
84
0
0
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
Look, it's not like the game is necessarily bad in quality of content, but in QUANTITY, it just doesn't hold enough to justify a $60-$120 pricetag, especially compared to the content of a game made just a year before it. If this WAS just released as a DLC with some tweaks to gameplay, or given a relative low price of $15-$30, it would be a more fair offer. It's more to counterbalance the "charge more money for less content" strategy that Triple-A gaming has been sticking to these days is all.
But this is a standalone game. Meaning you don't have to have B4 to get the Battlefield large scale battle experience AND get a new game mode on top. If you already have battlefield, that's different, but you are paying full price because you are getting the full package, the same package that someone with no Battlefield has had.

What are you saying that if you buy a sequel it should be discounted if you bought the game before it?
Look, it'd be one thing if Hardline was its standalone game, but the truth is that, overall, it has REDUCED features compared to Battlefield 4, and what new features it DOES add don't make up the difference. Angry Joe called it all out in his video, condemning a "lack of content", "lackluster singleplayer campaign" and "multiplayer modes you're done with in just a few days". Just because the game's in a different setting doesn't make up for all the cut corners, nor would the novelty of "Battlefield, but with COPS AND ROBBERS" by itself make up the cost difference. Now, I really do hope that, if Hardline does do well, they'll add in far more features and an overall better experience in the next installment. But as for right now, I'm not going to put down $60-$120 to get what relatively little there is in the current installment.
 

theuprising

New member
Jun 19, 2013
85
0
0
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
Look, it's not like the game is necessarily bad in quality of content, but in QUANTITY, it just doesn't hold enough to justify a $60-$120 pricetag, especially compared to the content of a game made just a year before it. If this WAS just released as a DLC with some tweaks to gameplay, or given a relative low price of $15-$30, it would be a more fair offer. It's more to counterbalance the "charge more money for less content" strategy that Triple-A gaming has been sticking to these days is all.
But this is a standalone game. Meaning you don't have to have B4 to get the Battlefield large scale battle experience AND get a new game mode on top. If you already have battlefield, that's different, but you are paying full price because you are getting the full package, the same package that someone with no Battlefield has had.

What are you saying that if you buy a sequel it should be discounted if you bought the game before it?
Look, it'd be one thing if Hardline was its standalone game, but the truth is that, overall, it has REDUCED features compared to Battlefield 4, and what new features it DOES add don't make up the difference. Angry Joe called it all out in his video, condemning a "lack of content", "lackluster singleplayer campaign" and "multiplayer modes you're done with in just a few days". Just because the game's in a different setting doesn't make up for all the cut corners, nor would the novelty of "Battlefield, but with COPS AND ROBBERS" by itself make up the cost difference. Now, I really do hope that, if Hardline does do well, they'll add in far more features and an overall better experience in the next installment. But as for right now, I'm not going to put down $60-$120 to get what relatively little there is in the current installment.
Well no crap, its kind of like the jump b/w Forza 4 to 5, they had to make brand new stuff so you have less content but they worked just as hard it. With your way of thinking everything in the world should be paid by subscriptions so you never overpay for sequels, and just like sub service games, there practically never is large growth or change.
 

MaddKossack115

New member
Jul 29, 2013
84
0
0
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
theuprising said:
MaddKossack115 said:
Well, I can see Yahtzee enjoyed Hardline more than most other modern First Person Shooters (which isn't saying that much), but one thing that he didn't point out was the PRICE of the thing, and how little content was available for that price. Even though the content was practically a "Cops & Robbers DLC" for Battlefield 4, they had the gall to make this a separate game for the FULL price of Battlefield 4. In other words, that'd be $60 for the STANDARD edition of Hardline (which, again, only has about HALF of Battlefield 4's total content, for Battlefield 4's FULL opening price), $120 for the Premium Edition, and god alone knows how much more for DLC purchases after that.

Personally, I'm more with Angry Joe in that Hardline should've gone in one of two directions - either pare down the price of Hardline from $60 to about $15-$30, and release it as Battlefield 4 DLC (like how Far Cry: Blood Dragon was DLC for Far Cry 3), or develop Hardline as its own IP, separate from the Battlefield licence, and from the mechanics of Battlefield that clashed with the "Cops & Robbers" theme of the game.
By this logic never buy a CoD game again b/c they add bollocks to the multiplayer other than new maps. Stop whining, its been stated in many reviews that BF hardline is a great value cuz you get the new style of multiplayer as well as classic battlefield multiplayer the series is known for.
Look, it's not like the game is necessarily bad in quality of content, but in QUANTITY, it just doesn't hold enough to justify a $60-$120 pricetag, especially compared to the content of a game made just a year before it. If this WAS just released as a DLC with some tweaks to gameplay, or given a relative low price of $15-$30, it would be a more fair offer. It's more to counterbalance the "charge more money for less content" strategy that Triple-A gaming has been sticking to these days is all.
But this is a standalone game. Meaning you don't have to have B4 to get the Battlefield large scale battle experience AND get a new game mode on top. If you already have battlefield, that's different, but you are paying full price because you are getting the full package, the same package that someone with no Battlefield has had.

What are you saying that if you buy a sequel it should be discounted if you bought the game before it?
Look, it'd be one thing if Hardline was its standalone game, but the truth is that, overall, it has REDUCED features compared to Battlefield 4, and what new features it DOES add don't make up the difference. Angry Joe called it all out in his video, condemning a "lack of content", "lackluster singleplayer campaign" and "multiplayer modes you're done with in just a few days". Just because the game's in a different setting doesn't make up for all the cut corners, nor would the novelty of "Battlefield, but with COPS AND ROBBERS" by itself make up the cost difference. Now, I really do hope that, if Hardline does do well, they'll add in far more features and an overall better experience in the next installment. But as for right now, I'm not going to put down $60-$120 to get what relatively little there is in the current installment.
Well no crap, its kind of like the jump b/w Forza 4 to 5, they had to make brand new stuff so you have less content but they worked just as hard it. With your way of thinking everything in the world should be paid by subscriptions so you never overpay for sequels, and just like sub service games, there practically never is large growth or change.
...Ok, when did my argument say "everything in the world should be paid by subscriptions so you never overpay for sequels"? I'm just saying that Battlefield: Hardline just didn't bring enough to the table to justify paying a full $60 for the game (and certainly not $120 for the "premium pre-order editions"). If you feel content paying every last dime for the game you brought, I suppose that's fine, but considering the "Pay more for less" problem is all over the industry, there IS going to be no large growth or change if we ignore how much opportunity was missed by Hardline - only the stagnation will come from the gaming industry becoming complacent with releasing new games not much different from the old, not because of any financial restraints (which I assume you were trying to say with the "paid by subscriptions" comment that, frankly, I'm still not getting 100%).